Law SC rules 7-2 in favor of Bakery

[Mike]

What was the outcome of this case?

The baker one, obviously. This one particular case doesn't settle the issue, anymore than the customer winning the case in Oregon did. Like I said this will go to he supreme court, no doubt. The rest is just the pregame show

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you really believe that's what happened in that thread? Is that your honest interpretation of that discourse?

Absolutely. Your only defense for your claim (after the graph you posted, which didn't make the point) was to personally attack people who disagree with it, and you were unable to respond to the points made that refuted it. Additionally, I asked one of you how it was even possible to disagree without drawing a personal attack from you, and no response came.

What happened is that I made a claim (that the media is biased). I then defended that claim. After providing no evidence himself, @Jack V Savage called me a conspiracy theorist, dismissed everything that I had said in a very condescending manner without so much as addressing any of the evidence or claims, and then acted liked the victim when I said, "To hell with this."

So you are 100% lying here. Here's the thread so everyone can confirm that:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/i...ecome-tyrannical-at-any-moment.3727695/page-6

You came in at 176, posting a graph and making an assertion.

(I challenge you to find a single moment in politics, sports, boxing, or otherwise where he has admitted that he was wrong or that he conceded that someone else knew more about a topic than he did).

From earlier today:

I know nothing about it. @Quipling, @Denter or @BKMMAFAN might be better people to ask on this one.

Challenge 100% met.

Just admit that you were wrong on the other thread, and now you're lying and attacking me because you feel ashamed about it.

And when you don't subscribe to his viewpoint, then he accuses you of being tribal or partisan, as though his views are the only objective truth. This is the problem I have with the man.

As anyone who views the earlier thread can see, you're describing yourself. Not only are you unwilling to admit that your CT is false, you cannot acknowledge that anyone can honestly disagree with it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Agreed.

Not that it factored in the ruling, but the accounts I have heard suggest that the baker did in fact try to sell pre-made cakes to the couple, but refused a custom cake. Imo, that was the correct way to handle the situation.

I wonder if it matters in such a case whether you're refusing service generally or refusing a specific service.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I wonder if it matters in such a case whether you're refusing service generally or refusing a specific service.

The argument being made by the lawyers of the baker was that a custom cake was an act of expression and thus could not be compelled by the government, so they themselves were not claiming some sort of religious exemption that allowed a general refusal of service. To me, this is like when Albertson's refused to create a custom "Trump 2016" cake.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

I have heard suggest that the baker did in fact try to sell pre-made cakes to the couple, but refused a custom cake.

If that's truly the case, then I guess the couple was just looking for trouble. I don't see the point in trying to force someone who doesn't like or respect them to bake a cake for them. Why would you want that cake?

With this case, I believe the baker's best argument lies in freedom of speech. I don't believe that someone should be compelled to author something which they don't believe, but at the same time, they also shouldn't be required to be protected from the economic consequences of their choices either. If the baker lost a lot of business as a consequence of him refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, then then it was the consequence of him exercising his freedom of speech, which i'd be fine with.

 

[sub_thug]

Absolutely. Your only defense for your claim (after the graph you posted, which didn't make the point) was to personally attack people who disagree with it, and you were unable to respond to the points made that refuted it. Additionally, I asked one of you how it was even possible to disagree without drawing a personal attack from you, and no response came.



So you are 100% lying here. Here's the thread so everyone can confirm that:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/i...ecome-tyrannical-at-any-moment.3727695/page-6

You came in at 176, posting a graph and making an assertion.



From earlier today:



Challenge 100% met.

Just admit that you were wrong on the other thread, and now you're lying and attacking me because you feel ashamed about it.



As anyone who views the earlier thread can see, you're describing yourself. Not only are you unwilling to admit that your CT is false, you cannot acknowledge that anyone can honestly disagree with it.

Yes, let them see that it was you who attacked @IngaVovchanchyn and I. And let them judge. They’ll see that you’re being a pompous ass, that you were beaten fair and square, and clearly still upset about something that happened to you days ago. What kind of person does that?

Once again, you describe me a conspiracy theorist in order to discredit me because throwing names around is what you’ve got. Ironically, you are claiming to be the victim in all of this. You’re either lying or so hung up on yourself that you can’t see what’s happening here, but I’m not sure which it is. As you can see by my interactions in threads, I don’t demand that anyone share my views, so your notion that I lash out against people who disagree with me is laughable. I’ve had wonderful exchanges with all sorts of posters on the other side of the aisle, and I’ve gotten a lot out of them. But clearly, you’re very upset that I didn’t just roll over to the Great Jack Savage, that I just didn’t tell you that you were right and I was wrong (let’s face it, that’s what you really wanted and the only thing you’d actually accept). You should probably take a look at yourself to why you crave such approval from someone you don’t even know on the internet. Your obsession with me isn’t healthy behavior.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, let them see that it was you who attacked @IngaVovchanchyn and I. And let them judge. They’ll see that you’re being a pompous ass, that you were beaten fair and square, and clearly still upset about something that happened to you days ago. What kind of person does that?

"That" in this case refers to stuff that didn't happen. I was citing that thread as example of the kind of closed-mindedness we were seeing from Mike. The position is that if you don't agree with the GOP, you are somehow impaired. No productive discussion can follow if your opening position is that obnoxiously sealed.

Once again, you describe me a conspiracy theorist in order to discredit me because throwing names around is what you’ve got.

I don't describe you as anything (I could use "liar" given your conduct here). I described your conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory, which is accurate.

Ironically, you are claiming to be the victim in all of this.

??? I was actually intermediating between Fawlty and Mike.

You’re either lying or so hung up on yourself that you can’t see what’s happening here, but I’m not sure which it is.

Not sure what you think "lying" means, but I define it as knowingly saying something untrue, like your description of the other thread (anyone can look at your claim and the actual thread and confirm that you were egregiously misrepresenting it, and recently enough that you can't blame faulty memory).

You can always answer my question: Is it possible for someone to disagree with your CT without being "partisan" as you define it?

 

[panamaican]

In an ideal world, these things wouldn't matter.
We don't live in such a world. If a business doesn't want my money, I'm sure I could find one that does. Anything else is acting like a bitch.

I don't know about that. Sure, find a business that wants your money but that doesn't mean you ignore poor behavior either.

Let's say you're at the bar and approach some girl, she doesn't like the cut of your jib and tosses her drink at you. Well, yeah, time to go find a girl who is interested but does that mean you ignore the drink tossing? Is it acting like a bitch to report her to the manager. And where is the line where you ignore an insult and where you respond?

 

[Quipling]

I wonder if it matters in such a case whether you're refusing service generally or refusing a specific service.

It matters some. It's not altogether clear where the line is drawn. My pet theory has a couple moving parts:

1.) What's the reason for not providing it?
1a.) Is that reason related to a protected status? (There's a separate debate over whether we should have those at all)

2.) Is it a service that you normally offer customers? (Ie, no hypos about a kosher deli being required to serve bacon)

3.) What does the service require of you?
3a.) How related is your concern/reason for denying service to what the service requires of you?

This is similar to your specificity thing, I think -being religiously opposed to gay marriage can't be a justification for actions-like plain cookies-that don't require you to endorse it. As those services shift to requiring more involvement in the activity found to be objectionable, the answer might follow.

 

[uppercutbus]

If a business doesn't want my money, I have no problem spending it elsewhere. It should be this simple, but of course, in the National Victimhood Olympics, it had to be a major issue.
Unless we are forcing every other group to participate in things they are morally against, rightly or wrongly, then I don't want to hear it.
If I walk into a bakery run by blacks and ask them to make a confederate flag cake, should they be forced to? Or a jewish bakery being asked to make a swastika cake? Should they be boycotted, harassed and forced to close their doors? The answer is no, if you are being fair.

this.

Offensive to whom? You seem to have missed the entire point. Gay marriage is offensive to many Christians and Muslims.

And drawing mohammed on a cake is offensive to muslims, yet liberals are like, "but that's different".

 

[Pessimystic]

I don't know about that. Sure, find a business that wants your money but that doesn't mean you ignore poor behavior either.

Let's say you're at the bar and approach some girl, she doesn't like the cut of your jib and tosses her drink at you. Well, yeah, time to go find a girl who is interested but does that mean you ignore the drink tossing? Is it acting like a bitch to report her to the manager. And where is the line where you ignore an insult and where you respond?

You're talking about physical assault. Big difference, and yes, reporting it to the manager is acting like a bitch.
A better analogy would have been the bartender refusing to pour me a drink. At which point I would get up and leave. Simple.

 

[Fawlty]

And drawing mohammed on a cake is offensive to muslims, yet liberals are like, "but that's different".

I recognize that you're only interested in being a low frequency troll, but this objection is made by much smarter idiots than you so I'll say again:

The actual drawing of the image of Muhammed is the widely-held sin, whereas decorating cakes with the names of gay people is not. They are vastly different. An equivalent to making a Muslim decorate a cake with Muhammed's face would be something like making a Christian write out an offensive spoof of the ten commandments (which isn't nearly as bad, but I'll credit the Christian side of the argument), which nobody in their right mind would agree is appropriate.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The argument being made by the lawyers of the baker was that a custom cake was an act of expression and thus could not be compelled by the government, so they themselves were not claiming some sort of religious exemption that allowed a general refusal of service. To me, this is like when Albertson's refused to create a custom "Trump 2016" cake.

But being Trump or a Trump supporter isn't a protected status whereas sexual orientation is a protected status in Colorado so it is a little different. But I do see that point about it being an act of expression.

It matters some. It's not altogether clear where the line is drawn. My pet theory has a couple moving parts:

1.) What's the reason for not providing it?
1a.) Is that reason related to a protected status? (There's a separate debate over whether we should have those at all)

2.) Is it a service that you normally offer customers? (Ie, no hypos about a kosher deli being required to serve bacon)

3.) What does the service require of you?
3a.) How related is your concern/reason for denying service to what the service requires of you?

This is similar to your specificity thing, I think -being religiously opposed to gay marriage can't be a justification for actions-like plain cookies-that don't require you to endorse it. As those services shift to requiring more involvement in the activity found to be objectionable, the answer might follow.

Where would you draw the line and do you believe this case crosses it or not?

 

[uppercutbus]

I recognize that you're only interested in being a low frequency troll, but this objection is made by much smarter idiots than you so I'll say again:

The actual drawing of the image of Muhammed is the widely-held sin, whereas decorating cakes with the names of gay people is not. They are vastly different. An equivalent to making a Muslim decorate a cake with Muhammed's face would be something like making a Christian write out an offensive spoof of the ten commandments (which isn't nearly as bad, but I'll credit the Christian side of the argument), which nobody in their right mind would agree is appropriate.

The situations are within range of Supreme Court ruling on both issues in the same way. Like I said "but that's different" is referring to the same post I read before of yours, of course an idiot like you says I am trolling which means the SC ruling in the Bakery's favor is "trolling".

 

[Fawlty]

The situations are within range of Supreme Court ruling on both issues in the same way. Like I said "but that's different" is referring to the same post I read before of yours, of course an idiot like you says I am trolling which means the SC ruling in the Bakery's favor is "trolling".

No, you don't understand the ruling at all. The ruling is that the state was prejudicial in application of the law, not that the anti-discrimination law was unconstitutional.

 

[uppercutbus]

No, you don't understand the ruling at all. The ruling is that the state was prejudicial in application of the law, not that the anti-discrimination law was unconstitutional.

The outcomes would be the same. I made no detailed post describing a breakdown of the law components in reaching a decision.

 

[panamaican]

You're talking about physical assault. Big difference, and yes, reporting it to the manager is acting like a bitch.
A better analogy would have been the bartender refusing to pour me a drink. At which point I would get up and leave. Simple.

The specifics of the example don't matter. I picked an obvious extreme to help set the tone before drilling down to fine points. so, the bartender not pouring a drink is not a better analogy because the sense of harm is too small.

You might not perceive the cake dismissal as a big harm but to the gay couple it likely is. so, the analogy needs a correspondingly big harm.

 

[Pessimystic]

The specifics of the example don't matter. I picked an obvious extreme to help set the tone before drilling down to fine points. so, the bartender not pouring a drink is not a better analogy because the sense of harm is too small.

You might not perceive the cake dismissal as a big harm but to the gay couple it likely is. so, the analogy needs a correspondingly big harm.

I'm sure they thought it was. SC thought otherwise. If not getting a cake made by a specific baker (I highly doubt that there were no other bakeries within a reasonable radius to choose from) constitutes "big harm", then I'd say you have bigger things to contend with than a cake.
They weren't "harmed"; they wanted to make a very public example, they lost.
I have no problem with two dudes taking the plunge, I'm an enlightened guy after all, but this whole escapade reeks of virtue signalling BS. Just go find another baker, how hard would that have been?
Police are denied service from eateries more and more frequently, I don't see the country having a crisis over that. Trump admin officials are being harassed and driven from them, as well. And let me just preemptively state that whether or not it is because of a way a person is born or the profession they choose is irrelevant; either discrimination is ok for all or it isn't for anybody.

 

[HeLLMuTT]

The specifics of the example don't matter. I picked an obvious extreme to help set the tone before drilling down to fine points. so, the bartender not pouring a drink is not a better analogy because the sense of harm is too small.

You might not perceive the cake dismissal as a big harm but to the gay couple it likely is. so, the analogy needs a correspondingly big harm.

If specifics don't matter. (they do)

Then why set a tone, to drill down fine points(specifics)?


JMO But getting a told to f-off by a uninterested girl at the bar is much different that getting a drink tossed in your face. Especially in the legal realm. I just think it's a bad example, that's all.


The WR seems to really beat dead horses on the most simplest of issues. That point is alluded to a number of times in this thread and every other time this happens, which is often.

< At just the massive amount of time and energy I would say is squandered on petty crap.

 

[sub_thug]

"That" in this case refers to stuff that didn't happen. I was citing that thread as example of the kind of closed-mindedness we were seeing from Mike. The position is that if you don't agree with the GOP, you are somehow impaired. No productive discussion can follow if your opening position is that obnoxiously sealed.



I don't describe you as anything (I could use "liar" given your conduct here). I described your conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory, which is accurate.



??? I was actually intermediating between Fawlty and Mike.



Not sure what you think "lying" means, but I define it as knowingly saying something untrue, like your description of the other thread (anyone can look at your claim and the actual thread and confirm that you were egregiously misrepresenting it, and recently enough that you can't blame faulty memory).

You can always answer my question: Is it possible for someone to disagree with your CT without being "partisan" as you define it?

You cited a thread from a few days ago. That is the “that” I was referencing. You seem upset about it.

You are holding an opinion that, if not agreed with, dismisses the person who holds it as a conspiracy theorist. How open-minded is that? How can meaningful discourse flow if you hold such a low opinion of anyone who disagrees with you, an opinion immediately formed?

The victim hood you claim is predicated upon this notion that I attacked you for no reason. I said that you were being condescending, and receiving no respect in return, I offered none.

By your own definition, I am accusing you of being the liar here.

It is possible for someone to disagree with me without being partisan. You bring up others, such as @Mike and @Fawlty. These are both great guys whom I’ve had the opportunity to share ideas with and converse. I like both, and even though we don’t always agree, we always disagree respectfully. I personally feel like the discussion of ideas with them is an enriching process that adds a new perspective. It’s when respect is not shown back that I decide to offer none in response, a reasonable course of action that I think most might subscribe to.